president obama defended them saying checks and balances are in place to weigh both privacy and security. he was adamant the government cannot and is not listening to your phone calls or targeting your e-mails. some people say, well, obama was this braving liberal before and now he is dick cheney and dick cheney said, yeah, he took it all lock, stock and barrel. my concern has always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances. >> president obama did not say if the u.s. is going to prosecute edward snowden. he is leaving that up to the justice department for now. meantime, snowden did not interview of his own. a web chat on the guardian website. he said being called a traitor by dick cheney is a high honor. most americans think he should be prosecuted.

good morning. >> good morning, chris. >> so chris, it almost feels like snowden and obama are trying to do the same thing. make their case to the american people about why each of them is right? is it clear who is winning at this point? >> i think it is interesting to see the president come out so forcefully. obama and his aides were very, very promoting this interview with charlie rose last night. what obama tried to do is try to make the case to the american people who were not listening to you, not reading your e-mails. in fact, this is all approved by congress and overseen by the federal courts. the problem the president has, with that explanation, is that the foreign intelligence surveillance court that oversees this, operates in secret. so there isn't a lot of details about whether or not the kind of check and balance is appropriate for the kind of information that americans are worried their government has their hands on. so at this point, i think it

remains to be seen who is winning. certainly polls show that snowden is not a popular figure. but this has a long way it play out chris. >> in the meantime we show that committee from nsa chief general keith alexander, about to take questions from a house committee. let me play you about actual terror plots that had been disrupted by the programs. >> we know who that there are dozens and we asked as well to start declassifying these. i do think he will talk about more declassified disruptions of terrorist attacks that involved these two programs. >> i'm sure you saw this jackie that yesterday edward snowden posed this point on a web chat. he said how many terrorist attacks were taken solely by information derived from programs. i guess one question is, is that even a fair question? >> right. i think the nsa chief was having allies on the panel. you heard mike rogers talking.

it was interesting to hear a divide and you heard mike rogers who supports a program like this. on the other end of the spectrum you have someone like michele bachmann who may be more critical of it. so that divide would be interesting. as for snowden, this chat was important but there are a lot of questions out there that he can't answer. you know, why he is in hong kong. all sort of things that have not been answered. i don't think you will get it from him. i think there is a lot of things we don't know yet about this and it will come out. >> there is a more, i think, to come. edward snowden is dead, by the way. had things to say about his son. let me play that clip for you. >> he know is the difference between what is just and unjust and right and wrong. he cares for all people. >> i would like to see ed come home and face this. >> whatever happened to him, i guess part of the question, chris, is what happens next in the big picture.

and in this discussion, that the president said needs to happen about these programs. >> that's right. the president invited this national debate about what we should do. and if anything, snowden has started a dialogue about what is the appropriate amount of data that the government should be collecting and looking at. and i think the government still will need to be able to explain, here is how we are using it. here is how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted and here is the upside to this. because what we don't know is how affective is this program and what is the trade-off? the pro and con about giving this information to the government. what are we getting in return? i think americans generally are waiting for the answer it that question. >> and as you pointed out, jacquie, and it is not like edward snowden is mr. popularity, but the president's polls took a hit also.

i guess the question is to what extent -- is this going to blow over? is there something else sensational to come? >> i don't know. when you look at snowden's chat, it seems he has more information. people have heard about it, which is different than the polls last week where people weren't paying attention. so there is more after public awareness and as a reaction, i think you will see more people getting involved. both at the congressional level and white house talking more about it. >> there is a level of intrigue that has people talking for sure. let me bring in senator tom udahl. >> good morning. good to be with you, chris. >> in the president's interview with charlie rose last night, he said he will meet with a private oversight board to try to find out what is going on with the nsa and declassify more documents. you have said, look, we need a

more transparent debate. will this help satisfy your concerns? what does quote, unquote, declsfide information look like? >> the reality is that this oversight board that was supposed to deal with civil liberties and privacy hasn't been filled for a long time. created a long time ago. administration was slow in terms of filling positions. it finally now is in a position to act and see if the right balance has been created. but this has been a long time coming. i have written a letter to them. it is a bipartisan letter. it is saying this is very serious under our constitution. what is happening. we want you to look into it. and come back with conclusions to us. and i'm encouraged that president is meeting with the

oversight board and having a discussion with them. but i want them to go forward, be aggressive and i want them to look the at constitutional issues that are involved here. >> you are also critical of the chief who came before the senate and we learned more about the situation sense then. do you have more questions for them? what would you like to hear him be asked today? >> well, i think the first thing we have to do, if we're talking transparency and openless, is we have to get the secret orders, the things that the court has put in place, legal analysis. get all of that out in the open. we're functioning now under a very -- >> so not just committees but out in public. >> that's right. i think when it comes to the legal analysis of why you're doing such specific things, that should be out in public. we should know how they are dealing with the fourth amendment issues. we know that the fourth amendment specifically says that court should be involved in terms of reaching this balance.

we don't know how much the courts are restricted and we don't know how much they are really involved with the constitutional issues right now. and the fourth amendment is what i'm worried about. seizing people's information without a reasonable suspicion. that's in the constitution. it is right there, talks about the courts being involved. >> i want to switch gears, if i can, and we are watching mike rogers getting started with this hearing. we want to let folks know we will be listening in on that. president obama met with vladimir putin says he is not going to arm the rebels. but i'm sure you know seven of the g eight nations know that assad must go. what should the u.s. do, particularly about, and this is the argument that gets made, 10,000 people being killed every month. >> oh, sure. and we know that president assad

is a brutal dictator. he has done horrible things. but the big question for us is, do we step into the middle of a civil war? what is going on there is the split between the sunnis and shia and they are coming in from all across the region to fight in this civil war. and do we want to plant america in the middle of that civil war. i think that's the big question. and if you're talking about arms, who are we arming? we don't know very much about the groups. there are a lot of groups out there. some days, some are up, some are down. i don't have any assurance and i would be asking these questions of all of the witnesses before congress. can you assure us if you're going to give heavy weapons to these rebels that they will stay in the right hand? that they won't hurt our allies like turkey, israel and iraq?

some of the rebels have come over from iraq. they are sunnis. they could go back there and try to destabilize with heavy weapons they get in syria. so we really haven't had the questions answered. who are we arming. and if you really are going to arm rebels with heavy weapons, are you going to be able to track those weapons? are you going to make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands? al qaeda and its affiliates are there in a big way. and i'm very worried about those kinds of weapons falling into their hand. >> well, the president answered your first question, who are the rebels, when he talked to charlie rose. so let me play for you exactly what he had to say. >> you bet. >> we had deepened our relationship and better information about who are the moderate members of the opposition. who are the members of the opposition we are affiliated with, who are affiliated with al

qaeda, who are coming in from iraq or yemen or pakistan or afghanistan. >> so do you think that the president knows more about the rebels? do you think he just has a different interpretation about the dangers posed by arming them? >> i think the situation is still that there isn't a real command structure. that that is it is very structured. he has a responsibility to the american people to say very directly to the american people why are we getting in the middle after civil war. why are we arming people that we don't know if those weapons are going to get in the wrong hand. those are the big questions of the day. and those weapons, heavy weapons we are talking about putting in. those could go to al qaeda or al qaeda affiliates in iraq to

disstabilize the government. we spent so much time and effort trying to stabilize. we have serious questions that need to be answered by the white house andi its team. >> mr. udall, thank you, it has been a pleasure. >> thank you. >> talking to nsa director general keith alexander, let's listen. >> -- really challenge. sitting at tran transparent democra democracy. we are trusting the country to prevent another the 9/11 attack but this trust can be hard. there is incomplete information

painting an inaccurate picture and fostering distrust in our government. this is particularly so when those of white house have taken the oath to protect information that can damage the national secure fit released, cannot publicly clarify information because it remains classified. it is at times like these where our enemies, with our enemies within, become almost as damaging as our enemies on the outside. it is critically important to protect sources and methods so we aren't giving the enemy our play book. it is also important, however, to be able to talk about how these programs help protect us so they can continue to be reauthorized and then we highlight the protections and oversight of which these programs operate under. general alexander, you and i have talked over the last week about the need to be able to publicly elaborate on the success stories, these authority have contributed to, without jeopardizing ongoing operations. i know you will have the opportunity to talk about

several of those today. i place the utmost value in protecting sources and methods and that's why you have been so dill rent in making sure anything disclosed comports with the need to protect sources and methods so again we don't make it easier for the bad guys overseas, terrorist in this case, to do harm to the united states citizens. and i respect that. i also recognize that when we are forced into the position of having so publicly discussed intelligence programs due to irresponsible criminal behavior that we also have to be careful balance the need for secrecy while educating the public. i think you have struck the right balance between protecting sources and methods and maintaining the public's trust by providing more examples of how though authorities have disru disrupted plots. they must continue to be available. without them, i fear we will return to the position where we were prior to the attacks of september 11th, 2001.

and that would be unacceptable for all of us. i hope today's hearing will help answer questions that have arisen as a result of the frag men tarry and distorted illegal disclosures over the next couple of days. before introducing general alexander for his statement, i turn the floor over for any statement he would like it mank. >> general alexander, chris english, your leadership at nsa has been outstanding. and i want to acknowledge will people who work there everyday -- >> we will continue listening to opening statement. well have more as they begin to question the nsa director right after this short break. you'll find reviews on home repair to healthcare, written by people just like you. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

♪ chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for boat insurance. geico, see how much you could save.

still in opening statements. we are waiting for the questioning of nsa director

keith alexander before the house intelligence committee. let's listen. he is about to begin his statement. >> to serve as a director of the national security agency and commander of u.s. cyber command. as you noted, we have extraordinary people doing great work to protect this country and to protect our civil liberties and privacy. over the past few weeks, unauthorized disclosures of classified information have resulted in considerable debate in the press about these pro programs. the debate, as you noted, was fueled by incomplete and inaccurate information by little contact on the purpose of the programs, will have u to our national security and that of our allies and protections in place to preserve our privacy and civil liberties. today, we will provide additional detail in context on these pro programs to help

inform that debate. these were approved by the administration, congress and the courts. from my perspective, a sound legal process that we all work together as a government to protect our nation and our civil liberties in privacy. ironically, the document that have been released so far show the rigorous oversight and compliance our government uses to balance security with civil liberties and privacy. let me start by saying that i would much rather be here today debating this point than trying to explain how we fail to prevent another 9/11. it is a testament to the ongoing team work of the central intelligence agency, federal bureau of investigation and national security agency working with allies and industry partners that we have been able to connect the dots and prevent more terrorist attacks.

the event of september 11th, 2001 occurred in part because of a failure on the part of our government to connect those dots. some of those dots were in the united states. the intelligence community was not able to connect the dots between phone calls between the operatives and u.s. and al qaeda terrorists overseas. following the t9/11 which investigated the failure to detect 9/11, congress passed the patriot act. section 215 of that act, as it has been interpreted and implied, helps the government close that gap by enailing the detention of contact between terrorist overseas and operatives within the united states. as director mueller emphasized last week during his testimony to the judiciary committee, if we had had section 215 in place

prior to 9/11, we may have known that 9/11 hijacker was located in san diego and communicating with a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. in recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the potential terrorist event over 50 times since 9/11. we will actually bring forward to the committee tomorrow documents that the inner agency agreed on, that in a classified setting gives everyone of those cases for your review. we will add two more today publicly. we will discuss. but as chairman noted, if we give all those up, we give secret of how we are tracking down terrorist as a community and we can't do that. too much is at risk for us and for our allies.

i'll go into greater detail as we go through the testimony this morning. i believe we have achieved this security and relative safety in a way that does not compromise the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. we would like it make three fundamental point. first, these programs are critical to the intelligence community ability to protect our nation and our allies security. they assist the intelligence community effort to connect the dots. second, these programs are limited, focused and subject to rigorous oversight. they have distinct purposes and oversight mechanisms. we have rigorous training progra programs for our analyst and soup risers to understand responsibilities regarding compliance. third, the disciplined operation of these programs protects the privacy and civil liberties of the american people.

we will provide important details about each of those. first, i have asked the deputy attorney general, jim cole, to discuss the civil libertyes. general? >> thank you. members of the committee, as general alexander said, and as chairman and ranking members have, all of us in the national security area are constantly trying to balance, protecting public safety with protecting people's privacy and civil liberties in this government. and it is a constant job at balancing this. we think we've done this in these instances. there are statutes that are passed by congress. this is not a program that is off the books. that's been hidden away. this is part of what government puts together and discusses, statute are passed, it is overseen by three branches of our government. the legislature, judiciary and

executive branch. the process of oversight occurs before, during and after the processes that we are talking about today. and i want to talk a little bit about how that works, what the legal framework is and what some of the protections are that are put into it. first of all, what we have seen published in the newspaper concerning 215, this is the business records provisions of the patriot act that also modify physa, you have seen one order in the newspaper that is a couple of pages long that just says, under that order, we are allowed to acquire metadata, telephone records. that one of two orders. it's the smallest of the two orders. and the other order which has not been published goes into, in great detail, with a we can do with that metmetadata.

how we can access it. what we can do with it once we have looked through it. and the restrictions placed on us to protect privacy, civil libertyes a enat the same time protect public safety. first of all, it is metadata. these are phone records. just like what you would get in your own phone bill. it is the number that was dialled from. the number that was dialled to. the date and the length of time. that all we get under 215. we do not get the identity of any of the parties to this phone call. we don't get any cell site or location information as to where any of these phones were located. and most importantly, and you will probably hear this about a hundred times a day, we don't get any content under this. we don't listen in on anyone's calls under this program at all. this is under, as i said, section 215 of the patriot act.

this has been debated, up for reauthorization and reauthorized twice since its inception in 2006 and 2011. now in order -- the way it works, is there is an application made by the fbi under the statute to the fisa court, we call it the fisq. they get records that are relevant to a national security investigation. and they much show it is operated under the guidelines set forth under the attorney genera general. these are like record. like the metadata, the phone records i've been describing, but quite explicitly limited to things that you could get with a grand jury subpoena.

those kinds of records. now, it is important to know, prosecutors issue grand jury subpoenas all the time and do not need any involvement of a court or anybody else really to do so. under this program, we need permission to do this ahead of time. so it this is different from a grand jury subpoena but the type of records, documents, business records, things like that, are limited to the same types of records that we could get through a grand jury subpoena. now the orders we get in the last the 0 day is so we have to reup and renew the order every t 90 days to do this. there are strict controls under what we can do. and again, that's the bigger

thicker order that hasn't been published. there are strict order on who can access it in this order. it is stored in repositories at nsa that can only be accessed by a limited number of people. and the people who are allowed to access it have to have special and rigorous training about the standard under which they can access it. there needs to be a finding that there is reasonable suspicious that you can articulate that you can put into words that the person whose phone record you want to query is involved with some sort of terrorist organizations and they are defined. it is not everyone. they are limited, in the statute. so there has to be independent evidence, aside from these phone records, that the person you are targeting is involved with a terrorist organization. if that person is a united states person, a citizen or

lawful permanent resident, you have to have something more than just their own speeches, their own readings, their own first amendment type of activity. you have to have additional efd beyond that, that indicate that there is reasonable, articulate suspicious, that these people are associated with specific terrorist organizations. now, one of the things to keep in mind is that under the law, the fourth amendment does not apply to these records. there is a case quite a number of years ago by the supreme court that indicated that phone record like this that don't include any content are not covered by the fourth amendment because people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in who they called and when they called. that is something you showed in the phone company. something you showed in many, many people within the phone company, on a regular bases. once those records are accessed under this process, and

reasonable articulate suspicion is found, that found by especially trained people. it is reviewed by their supervisors. it is documented in writing ahead of time, so that somebody can take a look at it, and of the accessing done is done in an auditable position to. there is a trail of it. so both the decision and fact that support the accessing and queerry is documented. the amount done, what was done, all of that is documented and reviewed and audited on a fairly regular basis. there are also minimization procedures put into place. so that any of the information that is acquired has to be minimized. it has to be limited. and its use is strictly limited and all that is set out in the terms of the court order. and if any u.s. persons are

involved, there are particular restrictions on how any information concerning a u.s. person can be use owned this. now there is extensive oversight and compliance done with these records and with this process. every now and then, there may be a mistake. a wrong phone number or a person who shouldn't have been targeted get targeted because of a mistake in the phone record. something like that. each of those compliance incident, if and when they occur, have to be reported to the fisa court immediately. let me tell you, the fisa court fights back. they want to know, what have you done to fix it. whenever we have a compliance incident, we report it to the court immediately and to congress. we report it to the intelligence committee of both houses and judiciary committee of both houses. we also provide the intelligence

and judiciary committees with any significant interpretations that court makes of the 215 statute. if they make a ruling that is significant or issue an order that is significant in its interpretation, we provide those as well as the applications we made for those orders to the intelligence committee and to the judiciary committee. and every 30 days we are filing with the -- >> the man we are listening to is james cole, deputy attorney general. but what we have waiting for and we heard opening state from, general keith alexander, director of national security agency. and what we are waiting for is he will reveal details of two terror plots that were stopped because of these programs that have raised some questions. and so we are waiting to hear from him to give us details of those. we just heard from the president last night. we have heard from supporters of these programs all along that

they do a very real job of stopping terror attacks. in fact, in his opening statement, the nsa director said i would rather be here answering questions about this debate than sitting before you and answering questions about why we weren't able to prevent another 9/11. so this is part of what is their plan to explain why they believe these programs are so vital, so critical, as he said. let's listen once again, to james cole. >> -- on top of the periodic reports we make if there is a compliance incident. those include information about the data required and how we are performing under this statute. so once again, keeping in mind, all of this is done with three branches of government involved. oversight and initiation by the executive branch with review by multiple agencies, statute passed by congress, oversight by congress, and then oversight by

the court. now the 702 statute is different. under this, we do get content. but there's a big difference. you are only allowed under 702 to target for this purpose nonu.s. persons located outside of the united states. so if you have a u.s. permanent resident who's in madrid, spain, we can't target them under 702. or if you have a non-u.s. person, who is in cleveland, ohio, we cannot target them under 702. in order to target a person, they have to be neither a citizen, nor a permanent u.s. resident and they need to be outside of the out while we are targeting them. there is prohibitions in this statute. for example, you can't refers target somebody. this is where you target

somebody who is out of the out but really your goal is to capture conversations with somebody who is inside the out. so you are trying to do indirectly what you couldn't do directly. that is explicitly prohibited by this statute. and if there is ever any indication that it is being done, because again, we report the use that we make of this statute, to the court and to the congress, that is seen. you also have to have a valid foreign intelligent purpose. in order to do any of the targeting on this. so it has to be done for defined categories of weapons of mass destruction, foreign intelligence, things of that nature. >> we are waiting to hear from general keith alexander. we will take a quick break and be back with the live hearing before the house intelligence committee, right after this. is like hammering.

riding against the wind. uphill. every day. we make money on saddles and tubes. but not on bikes. my margins are thinner than these tires. anything that gives me some breathing room makes a difference. membership helps make the most of your cashflow. i'm nelson gutierrez of strictly bicycles and my money works as hard as i do. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

14 clubs. that's what they tell us a legal golf bag can hold. and while that leaves a little room for balls and tees, it doesn't leave room for much else. there's no room left for deadlines or conference calls. not a single pocket to hold the stress of the day, or the to-do list of tomorrow. only 14 clubs pick up the right one and drive it right down the middle of pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org.

congestion, for it's smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the busses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution to the earth. so i feel good. i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment. continuing to listen to

deputy attorney general, james cole, make the point that privacy rights are not being abused under the programs put forth by the nsa. let's continue to listen. >> we also, to congress under this program, the department of justice and office of the director of national intelligence, provide an annual report to fisk and congress for the minimization procedures contained in the court order. we also provide a semi-annual report to fisk and congress concerning the implementation of the program. what we have done and what we have found. we also provide to congress documents that contain again how we are dealing with the minimization procedures, any significant legalization procedures that fisk makes, concerning applications that relate to that. on top of all of this, annually, the inspector general for nsa

does an assessment which he provides to congress that reports on compliance, the number of disseminations under this program that relate to u.s. persons. the number of targets reasonably -- >> we are told general alexander will reveal terror plot stopped by surveillance. these are the questions that are going to be asked by members of the house intelligence committee. let me bring in our national investigative correspondent, michael isikoff, and michael, let's talk about the decision to release this information, to tell people some examples of exactly what these terror plots are that have been stopped. >> well, that's what we are waiting for. so far, we've only had very limited disclosure on this matter. the one example that's been cited is the plot to blow up subways in new york, in which these programs were useful and

critical in thwarting that plot. there's been push back from people locking at court record on that, suggesting that the situation may be a bit more kplacated. that it was actually british intelligence that first discovered sazzi's relationship to pakistan. we are supposed to be learning more from general alexander today. right now what we have been hearing is deputy attorney general cole sort of laying out what he is describing as the rigorous controls on these programs to make sure that innocent americans are not inadvertently targeted. >> let me go back to your first point which was, questions that had been raised, including by edward snowden who said, look, how do we know that these plots were disrupted solely by these kind of surveillance programs. >> yes. and it's a very good question and a question we used to deal with regularly during the bush

years when there were claims about enhanced interrogation techniques and how those thwarted terrorist plots and those claims have been subject to a lot of scrutiny and debate. in the case of the zazzi plot, again, what u.s. intelligence officials asserted in a statement we reported on over the weekend is that nsa discovered zazzi by through surveillance that he stent a terrorist in pakistan. >> let me interrupt you for a second, michael, general alex ander is speaking again. let's listen in. >> faa 702 contributed in over 90% of these cases. at least ten of these event, included homeland based threats and the vast majority business reports fisa reporting contributed as well. i would also point out that it is a great partnership with the

department of homeland security and those with the domestic nexus. but the real lead for domestic event is the federal bureau of investigation. it is our honor and privilege to work with director mueller. now over to shawn. >> thank you, general. thank you, chairman and ranking members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. nsa and fbi have a unique relationship and one that's been invaluable since 9/11. i just want it to highlight a up can el of instances. in fall of 2009, an e-mail was intercepted from a terrorist located in pakistan. that individual was talking with the individual located inside the united states, talking about perfecting a recipe for explosives. through legal process, that individual is identified as zazzi, located in denver colorado. the fbi followed him to new york

city, later we executed search warrant with the new york joint terrorism task force and nypd. and found bomb making component in back backs. he later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subways with backpacks. the nsa was able to provide a previously unknown number of one of the could conspirators. this is the first plot since 9/11 directed from pakistan. another example, nsa with 702 authority was monitoring a a known extremist in yemen. this individual was in contact with a an individual in the united states called owazani. owaza in i and other individuals we identified through a fisa that the fbi applied for through

the fisk were able to detect a plotting to bomb the new york stock exchange. owazani had been providing information and support to the plot. the fbi disrupted and arrested these individuals. also, david hemally, fbi finding his possible involvement in the mumbai attacks responsible for killing over 160 people. and nsa through 702 coverage of an al qaeda affiliated terrorist found that headily was working on a plot to bomb a danish newspaper office that published the cartoon depictions of the profit mohamed. in fact, heldley confessed to plotting to bomb the office.

lastly, the fbi opened an investigation shortly after t 9/11. we did not find links to terrorism so we closed the investigation. however, the nsa using the business record fisa tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process, and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. thank you. back to you, general. >> so that's four cases total. that we put out publicly. what we are in the process of doing with the inner agency is looking at over 50 cases classified and will remain classified, and brought to both intel committees of the senate and house, to all of you. those 50 cases right now have

been looked at by the fbi, cia and other partners within the community and national counterterrorism centers validating all of the point so you know what we put in there is exactly right. i believe the numbers from those cases are something that we can publicly revel and all publicly talk about. what we are concerned is the chairman said is going into more detail on how we stop some of the cases as are concerned it will give our adversaryes a way to work around those. and attack us or our allies. and that would be unacceptable. i have concerns that the not tensional and irresponsibility release of classified information about these programs will have a long and irreversible impact on our nation's security and on that of our allies. this is significant. i want to emphasize that foreign intelligence is a best -- the foreign intelligence programs we are talking about is the best counterterrorism tools that we have to go after these guys.

we can't lose those capabilities. one of the issues that has repeatedly come up, how do you then protect civil liberties an privacy, where is the oversight, what are you doing on that? we have deputy director of national security agency chris english will now talk about that and give you specifics about what we do and how we do it with these programs. >> thank you, general alexander. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. i'm pleased to be able to briefly describe the two programs as used by the national security agency with specific focus on the internal controls and oversight providing. first to remind these two complimentary but distinct programs are focused on foreign intelligence. that's nsa's charge. the first program executed under section 215 of the patriot act -- >> in total we hear about four cases where officials say that terror plots were disrupted and michael isikoff remains with us and obviously we were talking

about szazi before break. your reaction to the other three he talked about just now. >> details were pretty sketchy. so it is a little hard to evaluate based on the information that they have just supplied. i would note that general alexander, when he introduced shawn joyce from the fbi, he was very careful. he talked about how the programs contributed to the falling of these plots. he did not say that they were solely responsible for foiling the plots. so i think that's a little bit of a sort of walk back from statement we were hearing last week. it is important to note that basic nsa surveillance program that they are citing here, that the foreign terrorist e-mails

and telephones overseas. and when they get information that they are in communication with somebody in the u.s., then they will initiate the targeting of the individual and the u.s. that's probably the lesser -- the least controversial of the programs that have come to light since this whole controversy began. because most people -- i mean, they have been very public that these authorities exist. we have known about them for some time. we don't know all of the granular details about how they work but the fact that they -- that we have these programs, that the nsa does this kind of targeting, has not really been the subject of a lot of debate and has not been the subject of a lot of criticize. what elevated this controversy was first, the collection of mass telephone metadata, of

virtually every call made by every american in the united states was collected under the patriot act, that's what really first alarmed people. that what was not publicly known. so it is the interaction of these two programs. how that telephone metadata is then collated and used with this other foreign surveillance capabilities that's really the issue in dispute and we didn't hear much in this explanation so far of how those two programs have interacted. >> let me just ask you about the other three programs, or other three instances. one that they said was someone named kahlid ozani. early plans to bomb a new york exchange. other one is david hedley, another one in chicago, talking about the mumbai attacks, and the danish newspaper plot. those are the ones that did the

cartoons of the prophet mohammed. and yet, the fourth example, contacts with someone in the united states with terrorist overseas. so disrupt a plot. anything there that we've heard before? that you know of? >> well, certainly, the hedley case got a lot of attention and led to criminal trial in chicago. >> but nothing he detailed that we have not heard before. >> no. what we heard for the first time here, although alluded to last week, was the aversion that 702 surveillance programs led to hedley. there's been separate reporting that british intelligence actually have provided the united states with the first tip on that. so again, the story may be a bit more complicated presented here. it is hard it reach a conclusion based on what they are saying here because the details they

are providing are so sketchy. i this i most people hearing this will be satisfied that the programs are useful. that they do contribute. the questions really at issue are what kind of controls are placed on them. how do we know they aren't misused and how they interact with the other program, telephone metadata in which we now know all of our phone calls are stored in a massive data base. >> and the fact of the matter is, i think that we won't get a lot of details on many of the programs for just the reason that was cited. what the intelligence community will tell you is, look, we cannot give too many details on this because it gives information that will help other terrorists work around this system. now, he did say there will be 50 cases where the members of the appropriate committees it sound like, are going to get more details. >> right. and chris, it'll be very interesting to listen to the questioning from members here. because there are a lot of assertions about the rigorous

controls under these programs and how they ensure that innocent americans are not targeted, are not -- and that this information is not misused. but we do know because of -- because of the disclosures of the past two weeks and some separate litigation, that there have been instances where these authorities were misused. in fact, we have learned just in the past week that there was an 86-page written opinion from the fisk court, foreign intelligence surveillance court, in 2011, finding that some collection under this program, was unreasonable under the fourth amendment. in other word, illegal. a finding by the fisc court that collections were done in way teas the court found were illegal. now there's been very little explanations of that. one question that i'll be looking forward to seeing is if

we get any questioning about that in the hearing today. >> it is likely we will hear a lot of questioning. coming up in the coming hours as we continue to listen in to this house intelligence committee hearing. thank you so much. michael isikoff. that does it for jansing and company pb i'm chris jansing. chris nelson will have more coming up p. safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world.

over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

twenty-five thousand mornings, give or take, is all we humans get. we spend them on treadmills. we spend them in traffic. and if we get lucky, really lucky, it dawns on us to go spend them in a world where a simple sunrise can still be magic. twenty-five thousand mornings. make sure some of them are pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org. [ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting

to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪ these programs together with other intelligence have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe. to include helping prevent the terrorist -- potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. >> the man running the top secret national security agency is in the hot seat right now. general keith alexander insisting the secret government surveillance programs that sparked a fire storm have repeat lid thwarted acts of terrorism. repeatedly. more than 50 since 9/11 he said. they have outlined four specific

cases where the programs allegedly stopped terrorist attacks. i'm craig melvin. new revelations by intelligence officials come as president obama declares, he is no dick cheney. since the programs were leaked to the press, the president said the government is not reading your e-mail or listening to your phone calls. he also pushed back against comparisons to his predecessor's controversial policies and equally controversial right hand man. >> some people say obama was this raving liberal before, now he's dick cheney. dick cheney sometimes says yeah, he took it all lock, stock and barrel. my concern has always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism but rather, are we setting up a system of checks and balances. >> here with me now, nbc news national investigative correspondent, michael isikoff. michael, we have